Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 117unwelcome solicitation of women and children by customers, and unwelcomesolicitation of male residents by prostitutes. Police sweeps through the affectedneighbourhoods using the communicating provision help reduce these harms. Inour view, while far from a permanent solution, the provision is rationally related toa reasonable apprehension of harm.Accordingly, it cannot be said to bearbitrary.(4) Is the communicating provision overbroad?[290] The application judge found that the communicating provision in s.213(1)(c) is not overly broad. She explained that in the Prostitution Reference,Dickson C.J. found that the violation of freedom of expression was a reasonablelimit under s. 1 of the Charter. In making this determination, he necessarily hadto consider whether the provision was too broad in accordance with the s. 1proportionality test. As the application judge noted, the analysis of overbreadth issimilar to the analysis undertaken in considering the part of the proportionalitytest that asks whether the legislation impairs the protected right as little aspossible. She recognized the different context, in that overbreadth is a principleof fundamental justice, whereas the issue considered by Dickson C.J. was theapplication of the proportionality test to a violation of freedom of expression. Theapplication judge was concerned that a more narrowly tailored law might actuallyincrease the danger to prostitutes by moving their activities to isolated areas.